Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Cardiac magnetic resonance stress testing: Results and prognosis

  • Published:
Current Cardiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cardiac stress magnetic resonance (MR) testing has been developed and optimized in the past decade, reaching a high diagnostic performance. Its efficacy, together with its excellent safety profile and increasing availability, make cardiac stress MR testing one of the diagnostic modalities of choice for detecting ischemia. A noticeable series of studies validated the diagnosis of ischemia with MR compared with coronary angiography and other noninvasive diagnostic techniques and invasive hemodynamic measurements. In addition, first data on the usefulness of cardiac stress MR testing in assessing prognosis has become available. This article reviews the available literature about diagnostic performance of cardiac stress MR testing and its results in the prognostication of cardiac patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

  1. Nandalur KR, Dwamena BA, Choudhri AF, et al.: Diagnostic performance of stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 50:1343–1353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hendel RC, Patel MR, Kramer CM, et al.: ACCF/ACR/SCCT/SCMR/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SIR 2006 appropriateness criteria for cardiac computed tomography and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Quality Strategic Directions Committee Appropriateness Criteria Working Group, American College of Radiology, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, North American Society for Cardiac Imaging, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Interventional Radiology. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 48:1475–1497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ishida N, Sakuma H, Motoyasu M, et al.: Noninfarcted myocardium: correlation between dynamic first-pass contrast-enhanced myocardial MR imaging and quantitative coronary angiography. Radiology 2003, 229:209–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Pilz G, Bernhardt P, Klos M, et al.: Clinical implication of adenosine-stress cardiac magnetic resonance imaging as potential gatekeeper prior to invasive examination in patients with AHA/ACC class II indication for coronary angiography. Clin Res Cardiol 2006, 95:531–538.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Takase B, Nagata M, Kihara T, et al.: Whole-heart dipyridamole stress first-pass myocardial perfusion MRI for the detection of coronary artery disease. Jpn Heart J 2004, 45:475–486.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Doyle M, Fuisz A, Kortright E, et al.: The impact of myocardial flow reserve on the detection of coronary artery disease by perfusion imaging methods: an NHLBI WISE study. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2003, 5:475–485.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Nagel E, Klein C, Paetsch I, et al.: Magnetic resonance perfusion measurements for the noninvasive detection of coronary artery disease. Circulation 2003, 108:432–437.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Plein S, Greenwood JP, Ridgway JP, et al.: Assessment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 44:2173–2181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Plein S, Radjenovic A, Ridgway JP, et al.: Coronary artery disease: myocardial perfusion MR imaging with sensitivity encoding versus conventional angiography. Radiology 2005, 235:423–430.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wolff SD, Schwitter J, Coulden R, et al.: Myocardial first-pass perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a multicenter dose-ranging study. Circulation 2004, 110:732–737.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Giang TH, Nanz D, Coulden R, et al.: Detection of coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance myocardial perfusion imaging with various contrast medium doses: first European multi-centre experience. Eur Heart J 2004, 25:1657–1665.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwitter J, Wacker CM, van Rossum AC, et al.: MRIMPACT: comparison of perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance with single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease in a multicentre, multivendor, randomized trial. Eur Heart J 2008, 29:480–489.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pennell DJ, Underwood SR, Ell PJ, et al.: Dipyridamole magnetic resonance imaging: a comparison with thallium-201 emission tomography. Br Heart J 1990, 64:362–369.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Pennell DJ, Underwood SR, Manzara CC, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging during dobutamine stress in coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 1992, 70:34–40.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Baer FM, Smolarz K, Jungehülsing M, et al.: Feasibility of high-dose dipyridamole-magnetic resonance imaging for detection of coronary artery disease and comparison with coronary angiography. Am J Cardiol 1992, 69:51–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. van Rugge FP, van der Wall EE, de Roos A, Bruschke AV: Dobutamine stress magnetic resonance imaging for detection of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1993, 22:431–439.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. van Rugge FP, van der Wall EE, Spanjersberg SJ, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging during dobutamine stress for detection and localization of coronary artery disease. Quantitative wall motion analysis using a modification of the centerline method. Circulation 1994, 90:127–138.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Baer FM, Voth E, Theissen P, et al.: Coronary artery disease: findings with GRE MR imaging and Tc-99mmethoxyisobutyl-isonitrile SPECT during simultaneous dobutamine stress. Radiology 1994, 193:203–209.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Nagel E, Lehmkuhl HB, Bocksch W, et al.: Noninvasive diagnosis of ischemia-induced wall motion abnormalities with the use of high-dose dobutamine stress MRI: comparison with dobutamine stress echocardiography. Circulation 1999, 99:763–770.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hundley WG, Morgan TM, Neagle CM, et al.: Magnetic resonance imaging determination of cardiac prognosis. Circulation 2002, 106:2328–2333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Paetsch I, Jahnke C, Ferrari VA, et al.: Determination of interobserver variability for identifying inducible left ventricular wall motion abnormalities during dobutamine stress magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Heart J 2006, 27:1459–1464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Jahnke C, Paetsch I, Gebker R, et al.: Accelerated 4D dobutamine stress MR imaging with k-t BLAST: feasibility and diagnostic performance. Radiology 2006, 24:718–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Rerkpattanapipat P, Gandhi SK, Darty SN, et al.: Feasibility to detect severe coronary artery stenoses with upright treadmill exercise magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol 2003, 92:603–636.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wahl A, Paetsch I, Roethemeyer S, et al.: High-dose dobutamine-atropine stress cardiovascular MR imaging after coronary revascularization in patients with wall motion abnormalities at rest. Radiology 2004, 233:210–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lee DC, Simonetti OP, Harris KR, et al.: Magnetic resonance versus radionuclide pharmacological stress perfusion imaging for flow-limiting stenoses of varying severity. Circulation 2004, 110:58–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Schwitter J, Nanz D, Kneifel S, et al.: Assessment of myocardial perfusion in coronary artery disease by magnetic resonance: a comparison with positron emission tomography and coronary angiography. Circulation 2001, 103:2230–2235.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rieber J, Huber A, Erhard I, et al.: Cardiac magnetic resonance perfusion imaging for the functional assessment of coronary artery disease: a comparison with coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. Eur Heart J 2006, 27:1465–1471.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kühl HP, Katoh M, Buhr C, et al.: Comparison of magnetic resonance perfusion imaging versus invasive fractional flow reserve for assessment of the hemodynamic significance of epicardial coronary artery stenosis. Am J Cardiol 2007, 99:1090–1095.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Costa MA, Shoemaker S, Futamatsu H, et al.: Quantitative magnetic resonance perfusion imaging detects anatomic and physiologic coronary artery disease as measured by coronary angiography and fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007, 50:514–522.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Futamatsu H, Wilke N, Klassen C, et al.: Evaluation of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging parameters to detect anatomically and hemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 2007, 154:298–305.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Dall’Armellina E, Morgan TM, Mandapaka S, et al.: Prediction of cardiac events in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction with dobutamine cardiovascular magnetic resonance assessment of wall motion score index. J Am Coll Cardiol 2008, 52:279–286.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rerkpattanapipat P, Morgan TM, Neagle CM, et al.: Assessment of preoperative cardiac risk with magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Cardiol 2002, 90:416–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ingkanisorn WP, Kwong RY, Bohme NS, et al.: Prognosis of negative adenosine stress magnetic resonance in patients presenting to an emergency department with chest pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006, 47:1427–1432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Jahnke C, Nagel E, Gebker R, et al.: Prognostic value of cardiac magnetic resonance stress tests: adenosine stress perfusion and dobutamine stress wall motion imaging. Circulation 2007, 115:1769–1776.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London BHF Centre of Research Excellence -Division of Imaging Sciences, The Rayne Institute, 4th Floor Lambeth Wing, St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, SE1 7EH, UK

    Eike Nagel

Authors
  1. Amedeo Chiribiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nuno Bettencourt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eike Nagel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eike Nagel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chiribiri, A., Bettencourt, N. & Nagel, E. Cardiac magnetic resonance stress testing: Results and prognosis. Curr Cardiol Rep 11, 54–60 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-009-0009-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-009-0009-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation